Bachakha & another v Egokhe & another (Environment and Land Case 14 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4454 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed land owners' bid to pause enforcement of a judgment because they waited over two years and showed no harm.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) for a stay of execution pending appeal were met
The Motion failed all three conditions: no substantial loss was demonstrated, the application was filed two years and five months after judgment without satisfactory explanation, and no offer of security was made
The Court restated the three fetters on its jurisdiction from Vishram Ravji Halai v Thornton & Turpin: sufficient cause, substantial loss, and offer of security, coupled with the overriding objective. The supporting affidavit was silent on the substantial loss the Defendants would suffer. The delay from 25th May 2023 to 8th September/October 2025 was unexplained and the Motion was only lodged after taxation and commencement of execution, indicating it was not made in good faith.
Whether the merits of the pending appeal could support a stay
No - the court cannot assess the chances of success of an appeal from a judge of concurrent jurisdiction
The Defendants claimed their appeal in Kisumu Court of Appeal Case No. 200 of 2023 had high chances of success. The court held that such an assessment is only relevant for intended appeals from subordinate courts; an appeal from a court of concurrent jurisdiction cannot be gauged by the High Court, so the claim of high chances of success could not sustain the Motion.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution pending appeal, and the applicant must establish it alongside no unreasonable delay and an offer of security
- A court cannot gauge the likely success of an appeal from a court of concurrent jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 8th September 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 3(2) of the High Court Practice and Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bachakha & another v Egokhe & another (Environment and Land Case 14 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4454 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 8th September 2025 (arising from land dispute over Land Parcel No. Samia/Buburi/256). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4454/eng@2026-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.